上级人民法院行政诉讼管辖裁量权扩大的挑战及其纾解——以中级人民法院为考察对象

《最高人民法院关于行政案件管辖若干问题的规定》对行政诉讼管辖作出了重大变革,赋予上级人民法院相当大的一审行政案件管辖配置裁量权。上级人民法院在积极有效运用管辖裁量的同时,也存在怠于裁量、滥用裁量的可能,也可能作出不公正裁量。为此,我们应科学合理地裁量指定管辖、提级审理抑或原法院管辖,并且通过赋予当事人管辖裁量听审权,建立完善的管辖裁量复议制度,切实发挥上级人民法院行政诉讼管辖裁量的能动作用。

论涉外民商事案件的管辖权问题

国际私法中的管辖权问题,随着国际交往日益频繁,在解决涉外民事案件中的地位日显突出,为此,各国从立法 上都对管辖权作出了规定,主张本国法院享有管辖权,使管辖权问题在调整涉外民事法律关系时出现不同程度的变化,管辖 权出现扩大的趋势。

自由裁量管辖权及其行使——《美国最高法院受案议程表的形成》导读

关于美国联邦最高法院的研究可谓浩如烟海,但关于该院程序或过程(process)的研究作品却凤毛麟角。在获悉经典作品《最高法院实务》

论提高最高法院的权威

提高司法公信力,关键在于提高最高法院的公信力;提高最高法院的公信力,关键在于树立最高法院的权威。建立裁量管辖和强制性先例制度,激活消极司法审查,设立司法首都,巩固事实终身制是提高最高法院权威的有效途径。

Fundamental Social Rights and Existenzminimum

While fundamental individual rights are unquestionably taken as subjective rights, the same does not happen with fundamental social rights. If they are subjective rights, they are justiciable. The main argument in favor of this understanding is based on liberty. The main argument against is the so called formal argument. In relation to the pro argument, liberty can be either juridical or factual. Juridical liberty has no value without factual liberty, because the right to liberty is only put into practice if one has the factual preconditions for its exercise. The argument against is that their justiciability displaces the competence of the elaboration of public politics from Legislative and Executive to Judiciary Power, what violates the principles of separation of powers and democracy. Nevertheless they are subjective rights indeed, but special ones： they are primafacie subjective rights. There is only one subjective right that is a priori considered definitive： the right to Existenzminimum） Its content is not settled, but it is quite unequivocal that the rights to simple housing, fundamental education and minimum level of medical assistance are part of it. Existenzminimum is then related to the minimum necessary for factual liberty. Against the justiciability of fundamental social rights, there are also arguments related to juridification of politics, administrative discretion and the possible reserve clause. The counter-arguments refer to original and exceptional competence, necessary objective proof of state＇s economical incapability, prohibition of State＇s will, principles of legality and of non-obviation o f Judiciary jurisdiction, Existenzminimun guarantee.

论国际商事法庭的管辖权——兼评中国国际商事法庭的管辖权配置

国际商事法庭是近年来各国涉外诉讼制度国际化、专业化和自由化发展的产物,对提升本国在国际商业版图中的地位和全球司法服务中的竞争力等方面发挥着越来越重要的作用。管辖权不仅是国际商事法庭受理案件的基本条件,也是维系各国司法制度合作与竞争的场域所在。晚近国际商事法庭的管辖权突破了传统地域管辖与属人管辖的客观连结限制,出现了以当事人协议管辖和法院裁量管辖为主的"主观"管辖根据。中国国际商事法庭在承继传统管辖根据的同时,在裁量管辖与执行管辖权配置方面具有一定的中国特色和制度创新。但是,一方面中国国际商事法庭的管辖与人民法院普通涉外民商事法庭的集中管辖存在着亟待厘清的分流关系,另一方面我国强调"实际联系"的保守做法与协议管辖的国际通行实践不大一致,这将减损中国国际商事法庭的国际化和自由化,需要进一步加强相关法律法规的调整以完善其管辖权的司法适用。